Moviematic Industries Corporation v. Board of County Commissioners
Florida Court of Appeal
349 So. 2d 667 (1977)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Moviematic Industries Corporation (Moviematic) (plaintiff) owned 1,200 acres of undeveloped property in Dade County (the county) zoned for heavy industrial use with an exception for business-airport uses. The property was located atop an aquifer that served as a major source of drinking water in the county. In 1974 the Board of County Commissioners (the commission) (defendant) imposed a building moratorium on an area of the county, including Moviematic’s property, to conduct and prepare a comprehensive study of the freshwater supply and natural ecosystems. In 1975, after the study was conducted, the commission adopted a resolution that rezoned Moviematic’s property to single-family-residential use and terminated the special permit for business-airport uses. Through certiorari, Moviematic sought a review of the zoning resolution in circuit court. The circuit court entered an order of denial. Moviematic appealed and argued that the resolution was invalid because it bore no reasonable relationship to public health, safety, morals, and welfare and constituted an unreasonable restriction on Moviematic’s beneficial use of the property. Moviematic claimed that the resolution amounted to a taking of real property without compensation in violation of the United States and Florida constitutions.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Haverfield, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.